For backwards compatibility reasons, I doubt we can really move lots of stuff into 'tools', but I agree that there is lots of stuff we could move there. If we started this kind of thinking, there are probably a bunch of very broad categories we could move things into.
I dislike tools as the name for the two tools at hand. Perhaps separate top-level collections is the best we can do. Robby On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > Is 'tool' plus flat subcollections really out? > > I am not really keen on 'tuning', plus I see a chance to thin out the > collection top-level tree here. > > > On Jul 11, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > >> I like coaching for the (formerly known as) performance report tool. A lot! >> >> I was suggesting "tuning" for the collection that would house the >> future visualizer and the performance coach and hopefully eventually a >> memory profiler. (And maybe Eli's profiler could move in there someday >> too.) >> >> Robby >> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen >> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >>> >>>> Would "tuning" work? >>> >>> They were correct, and you conjectured correctly. We conflated >>> 'optimization' with 'performance gains.' As everyone knows who has been >>> around real compilers and their writers, some 'optimizations' are >>> 'pessimizations' as Keith used to call them. And of course even when >>> 'optimizations' reduce the running time and/or the space consumption, they >>> aren't _optimizations_ as John Dennis used to remind us. There is a similar >>> conflation that additional related work pointed out. People tend to confuse >>> 'analysis results' with 'can do optimization'. This is certainly not true >>> for in-lining in Racket and if you know of more those optimizations, I'd >>> love to hear about them. >>> >>> 'Tuning' would work but we decided that 'coaching' was a good term for what >>> was going on from the programmer's perspective. And the word isn't used >>> anywhere else in CS as far as I know, while other terms (including >>> 'tuning') are used and may have a different connotation. >>> > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
